Filosofía empresarial con enfoque al talento humano

Despite evidence of contact and a certain amount of hospitality between the Church of England and its ministers and continental protestant churches which, at the

O Q - I

Reformation, adopted a different pattern of ministry and oversight, there is no concrete evidence that the law of England ever allowed those who were not ordained by bishops who had themselves been ordained by bishops in the historic succession to exercise ordained ministry in the Church of England. This is plain on the face of the Act of Uniformity 1662 and in the preface and rubrics of the Ordinal. It was confirmed by the judgment of the court in Fillingham’s case. That the threefold order of bishops, priests and deacons is part of the self-understanding of the Church of England, and the wider Anglican Communion, was affirmed by ARCIC, which agreed that this understanding ‘does substantially reflect the [Anglican] view on ministry and ordination as conveyed in .... liturgical documents’.894 Owen Chadwick, in analysing

890 I.e. a follower o f the anti-ritualist protester John Kensit. See chapter 9 above.

891 Bishop o f St Albans v Fillingham at 177.

892 Bishop o f St Albans v Fillingham at 187-8.

893 Williams, Rowan, ‘Unity and Universality, Locality and Diversity in Anglicanism’, conference paper given at Receptive Ecumenism and Ecclesial Learning: Learning to Be Church Together, Joint 2nd International Receptive Ecumenism Conference & 3rd Annual Gathering o f the Ecclesiological

Investigations Network, Ushaw College, Durham, 13 January 2009.

decisions of successive Lambeth Conferences, states that the bishops of the Anglican Communion

believed that their ministry must indispensably be a ministry of persons ordained by bishops in succession from the apostles; the sacrament of

O Q C

ordination lay at the heart of their practical concern for Christian unity.

This opinion is backed by the terms of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral896, the famous Lambeth Appeal to All Christian People of 1920 and Archbishop Fisher’s 1946 Cambridge University Sermon897 where the Lambeth Conference and the Archbishop called on those who had lost the historic episcopate to take it into their system. The

Lambeth Appeal stated that the spiritual reality of other churches was not in doubt but

it stopped short of recommending any interchangeability of ministry (or even mutual Eucharistic hospitality) without other ministers accepting ‘a commission through episcopal ordination.’898

However, the Church of England was never entirely insulated from contact with non- episcopal churches and, particularly during the course of the twentieth century, agreements whereby the strict rule laid down by the Reformation statutes, confirmed by the Court and consistently stated by Lambeth Conferences, bishops and Convocations can be seen to have been relaxed, primarily in order to bring about unity amongst Christians.

895 Coleman, Roger (ed) Resolutions o f the twelve Lambeth Conferences 1867 - 1988, Toronto, 1992, xxii.

896 The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, based on a text agreed in Chicago at the 1886 General Convention o f the Episcopal Church in the United States o f America, was agreed at the Lambeth Conference o f 1888. It states that agreement on the following four areas is the basis on which Anglican churches would be able to unite with other churches:

a. The Holy Scriptures as the rule and ultimate standard o f faith.

b. The Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed as sufficient statements o f the Christian faith. c. The sacraments o f Baptism and the Lord’s supper.

d. The Historic Episcopate.

see Evans, G R and Wright J R, The Anglican Tradition London, 1991, paras 343 and 355.

897 The University Sermon, on 23 November 1946. See Carpenter, E Archbishop Fisher; His Life and

Times, Norwich, 1991, 310.

898 Resolution 9 o f Lambeth Conference 1920, in Stephenson, Alan, Anglicanism and the Lambeth

The Jerusalem Bishopric 1841

The scheme to appoint, ordain and maintain a bishop in Jerusalem who would be bishop for both Anglicans and German protestants resident in the Holy Land came into effect in 1841 and lasted until 1881. The scheme must be understood against the political and diplomatic backdrop of the time. The Holy Land was part of the Ottoman Empire, in which Christians had been given, at least in theory, equal rights in 1839.8" The indigenous Christians of the area were almost all either Roman or Eastern Catholic (‘latins’) or Orthodox, their interests being promoted diplomatically in the empire by the French and Russian governments respectively. French Roman Catholic missionaries were beginning to become more numerous in the area. The Prussian government of King Frederick William IV was keen not to lose out on any opportunity for influence in the region900 and was concerned that, due to their small numbers of adherents, individual protestant denominations would not be recognised by the Turkish state.901 To this political background must be added the important views of evangelical protestants in England, particularly Anthony Ashley-Cooper, later the Earl of Shaftesbury and his supporters, on the importance of Jerusalem. Ashley-Cooper wanted to see Jerusalem re-populated with Jews under British protection, with a view to converting them to Christianity.902 Such a scheme would be a ‘portent of the second coming’.903

Frederick William sent the Prussian diplomat von Bunsen to London to propose the setting up of a joint bishopric in Jerusalem to oversee Anglican and German Protestant congregations in the Holy Land. After a series of meetings with interested parties the scheme was agreed to in outline at a meeting at which Archbishop Howley of Canterbury was present with Bishop Blomfield of London, Ashley-Cooper and Bunsen. The scheme proposed the appointment of a bishop in Jerusalem to be nominated alternately by the crowns of England and Prussia. The Archbishop of Canterbury would retain a veto over any nomination made by Prussia. The bishop would have spiritual jurisdiction over English clergy and congregations and ‘those who

899 Greaves R W, ‘The Jerusalem Bishopric, 1841 in English Historical Review (1949) lxiv, 328-352, 329.

900 Greaves, 330 ff.

901 Letter Frederick William IV to Bunsen 8 August 1841 in Hechler, William H (ed) The Jerusalem

Bishopric: Documents with Translations London 1883, documents section, 4.

902 Greaves, 333.

may join his Church and place themselves under his Episcopal authority in Palestine’ subject to the metropolitical authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.904 This category of persons was to include German protestant clergy and congregations who would ‘be under the care o f German clergymen ordained by [the bishop] for that purpose; who will officiate in the German language, according to the forms of their national liturgy.’ The German liturgy used was to be checked by the bishop for conformity to the doctrine of the Church of England and sanctioned by him, with the consent of the Metropolitan, for use in these congregations. The chief missionary concern of the bishop was to be the conversion of the Jewish people but he was to maintain good relations with other local churches, especially the Greek Orthodox.905

The scheme was certainly a novelty. It envisaged the possibility of the consecration of a German protestant clergyman as a bishop according to the rite of the Church of England and the ordination of ministers by the bishop for German congregations. German protestant candidates were required to subscribe to the Articles of Religion and also, if they were to serve German congregations, to show that they had similarly subscribed to the Augsberg Confession.906 In earlier times the appointment of a foreign subject as a bishop would not have been possible. This inconvenience had made it impossible, for instance, for English bishops to ordain a bishop for independent Connecticut, whose first bishop, Samuel Seabury, was consecrated by bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church.907A statute of George III allowed foreign nationals to be ordained to serve in countries over which the crown claimed no jurisdiction without taking the oath of allegiance.908 Such consecrations, however, required royal licence before they could take place.909 They took place at the request of overseas congregations. There was no provision, prior to 1841, for the appointment of a British citizen as a bishop to serve a place over which the crown claimed no jurisdiction. The procedure under the 1786 Act was not suitable for the inter-governmental project envisaged for Jerusalem. Consequently, Howley was encouraged to introduce the

904 Statement o f Proceedings relating to the Establishment o f a Bishopric o f the United Church o f

England and Ireland in Jerusalem. Published by Authority, London 1841, 6-7.

905 Statement o f Proceedings, 8.

906 Statement o f Proceedings, 9.

907 Gerald M. D. Howat, ‘Seabury, Samuel (1729-1796)’, Oxford Dictionary o f National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/59086, accessed 18 Oct 2007] 908 Consecration o f Bishops Abroad Act 1786. (26 Geo 3 c 84).

Bishops in Foreign Countries Bill to parliament.910 The Act, once passed, made it lawful for the Archbishop of Canterbury or of York and others called by them to consecrate either British or foreign bishops for places not subject to the crown without first obtaining the Queen’s licence for the election of the bishop or a royal mandate and without the candidate having sworn the oath of allegiance (if he was a foreign subject) or the oath of obedience to the Archbishop. The Archbishop still, however, needed to obtain a royal licence to authorize and empower him to perform the consecration.911 The bishop in question might exercise jurisdiction over British congregations of the United Church of England and Ireland and ‘over such other Protestant congregations as

Q1 9

may be desirous of placing themselves under his or their authority’. However, neither he nor those ordained by him would be able to minister in England without specific authority.913

The first bishop appointed under the scheme, Michael Solomon Alexander, was British, of Jewish birth and already in priests’ orders in the Church of England. By the time the scheme was finally wound up by an exchange of letters between Archbishop Benson and the Prussian authorities in 1885, there had been no German protestant minister consecrated as a bishop according to the Anglican rite.

The scheme was unpopular in England and Prussia. Liddon described it as ‘doomed from birth’914 and Newman regarded it as one of the reasons for his departure from the Church of England.915 Some Prussian opposition considered that the scheme failed sufficiently to recognise the ‘equal rights of the German Evangelical Church and community’ by giving the Archbishop of Canterbury a right of veto over Prussian nominations that was not reciprocal and that the conditions imposed on German clergy operating under the jurisdiction of the Bishop in Jerusalem meant that they were de

facto required to join the Church of England.916 The scheme was also open to criticism

from the viewpoint of international comity, since the reference to ‘jurisdiction over

910 Hansard vol LIX 1841 cols 473, 488,495-6, 511, 702. The Act received Royal Assent in October 1841, as the Bishops in Foreign Countries Act 1841, 5 Viet c 6.

911 Bishops in Foreign Countries Act 1841, s 3. 912 S 2.

913 S 4. Authority is provided by the Scottish Episcopal and Other Clergy Act 1840 (3&4 Viet c 33). 914 Chandler, 59.

915 Newman, John Henry, Apologia pro vita sua Oxford, 1967 ed., 144-148.

916 Letter Count Munster to Earl Granville 17 July 1882, Memorandum o f Baron Plessen 19 September 1884. PP(1887) Germany: No l,c 5 0 5 1 ff.